A simple framework for choosing which skills to train first

Every organisation has a longer list of skills it would like its people to have than it has budget or time to train. Deciding what to fund first is usually done by whoever asks loudest, or by repeating last year’s plan. There is a better way, and it takes about an hour.

Score each candidate on two questions

For every skill on the list, ask:

1. How much would it change the work? If everyone had this skill next month, how much faster, safer, or better would the team be? Score it low, medium, or high.
2. How ready is the team to use it? Do people have the tools, the time, and a reason to apply it straight away — or would the training sit unused? Score low, medium, high.

Sort into four groups

	Low readiness	High readiness
High impact	Fix the blockers first, then train	Train now
Low impact	Skip	Nice-to-have — queue it

• Train now (high impact, high readiness): this is where the budget goes.
• Fix the blockers first: the skill matters, but training it before people can use it wastes the training. Sort out the tool access or the process, then come back.
• Queue it: worth doing eventually, not urgent.
• Skip: be honest. Not every skill on the wish list earns a slot.

A few tie-breakers

• Prefer skills used by many people over skills used by a few. Broad, shallow training often beats narrow, deep training on total impact.
• Prefer skills the team asked for. Demand is a readiness signal.
• Watch for skills that unlock others. Learning to automate a workflow, for example, makes every future tool more valuable.

Do it as a group

The scoring conversation is where the value is. Getting managers to argue about impact and readiness for an hour surfaces assumptions, aligns expectations, and usually changes the plan. The grid is just a way to make the decision visible.